Everybody knows about the shot that was heard around the world as the birthing pains of this once great nation. Today, sadly, we may have heard it's death knell.

It did not come with violence or shots fired. It came with the virtual elimination of personal property rights.

Our founding fathers knew how important the ownership of property was and sought to protect the right to be secure in the ownership of property to the extent that they enshrined the guarantee that property would not be taken for public use without due process and just compensation.

For over 200 years it was understood that "public use" meant that the ownership would transfer from the private owner to the local, state, or federal government for things such as military bases, roads, schools, prisons, etc. Now, the meaning of "public use" has been altered by 5 people who were never elected to office and in all reality, are completely unaccountable to anyone, to mean privately owned condos, shopping centers, and business parks under the thin guise that those enterprises would contribute more tax money to the coffers, thus increasing the "public good"

Justice Stevens, writing for the majority said that judges should give city councils and state legislatures "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," he added. To make sure that he wasn't misunderstood he added, "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue," and just destroyed any pretence that you have any recourse whatsoever if the government or county decides that they want your property for any reason at all.

Sandra Day O'Connor writing a scathing dissent correctly said that now rich and politically land developers and businesses could basically take your land away from you with the help from the local government. Yes, you could fight it in court, but it is now fruitless as you are guaranteed to lose in a fixed fight.

For years the people have for the most party sat quietly as the government stole more and more freedoms from us. Prior to 1914 and fool could take any drug he or she wanted and kill themselves, thus increasing the quality of the gene pool for the rest of us. Before 1918, the government had no claim to your wages and could not tax them. Prior to 1934, Sears sold machine guns from their catalog and nobody thought anything about it. Prior to the 1950's preachers could freely endorse or denigrate any political candidate they wanted, just as had been done since the very first town government was formed in this country almost 350 years prior. Since 1986 it has been illegal to manufacture and sell a machine gun to a civilian despite the fact that in the past several decades the number of people int he US murdered by a person with a machine gun has been exactly one, and the person doing the shooting was a police officer using a gun issued to the police department.

But hope is not lost however, ownership of real property does a funny thing to people. It is a spot that a person can say, "This land is MINE!" with a dedication and a fierceness that is somewhat scary. Religion and politics and abortion and the WOT all take a back seat when two neighbors are faced with having their property stolen by the government.

Maybe that bell sounding isn't the death knell but the alarm.

Maybe this will awake the sheeple to realize that the socialist have gone too far.

I wonder if the New London plaintiffs will get 'just compensation' that is in line with what the government is saying the property will be worth after their 'plan' is instituted.

Because if the property has that "potential" value allowing the court to justify the taking, likewise, it should have that same value in 'just compensation' to the property owner. In other words, if the price being offered were truly fair, the owner would sell. Obviously it is not a fair price to convince the OWNER of the property to sell.

225
posted on 06/23/2005 11:01:27 PM PDT
by TheOtherOne
(I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)

[ I would like to ask the Justices how they feel approving of something that even the repressive country of Saudi Arabia doesn't do. They have no public domain law. The King can't even take property away from it's owner. ]

Unless he sends someone to kill him first, and one of his sons marrys the widow..

229
posted on 06/23/2005 11:04:31 PM PDT
by hosepipe
(This propaganda has been ok'ed me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)

we are in agreement on that, there is specific eminent domain right (or there was before today). what I am saying is, don't couple that with saying it also means a single family homeowner has a right to build a 50 story building in place of it. they don't.

Despite the shoddiness of the public school system and the vote counts the Democrats get, the number of unintelligent people in this country is far lower than the term "sheeple" implies.

The premise is that even if millions of people ignorantly surrender any particular right, understanding that it's our collective rights that fade, and desperately deserve preserving.

Oh, I understand the premise behind the posted article. What I don't understand is the application of the word sheeple to Americans. People are smarter than those who use said word are willing to admit.

Very sad indeed. This hateful, despicable decision may be the last nail in the coffin of what was once America. People can now have their homes snatched out from under them "for the public good"??? What the heck is the SCOTUS thinking???!!!

Don't expect any help from Bush, however. He has a problem in the form of a certain deal made for the purchase of land for a certain Texas stadium back in the early 1990's. If he does speak up about this, the MSM will rip him to shreds.

Only a constitutional amendment can save us now. Call your Congresscritters and Senators and DEMAND a Constitutional amendment to overturn the decision by these judicial TYRANTS. This decision must NOT be allowed to stand!

We will see if the Supremes have actually done us all a favor. It is high time to set aside petty squabbles, and even table the larger issues for this, something we can all agree on.

If private property is not sacrosanct, we have no freedom, no security, no prosperity.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

All rendered meaningless by a 5-4 decision?

I think not!

237
posted on 06/23/2005 11:23:59 PM PDT
by Smokin' Joe
(Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)

But considering that the lefties are as angry over this as we are (although as you said for different reasons), we may be able to use this to our advantage. Now we can tell them, "By blocking Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court, preferring instead justices like Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, you are guaranteed more rulings just like this one." The wall put up to Bush's nominations might then start to crack.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.